Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 76–89 | Cite as

Prenatal Genetic Testing: An Investigation of Determining Factors Affecting the Decision-Making Process

  • Monica PivettiEmail author
  • Giannino Melotti
Original Research


Despite the increase in popularity of prenatal genetic testing, relatively little is known about the role psychological factors play in the decision-making process. In this analogue study, a sample of Italian female university students was used to investigate determining factors that predict the intention of undergoing prenatal genetic testing. Structural Equation Modelling was used to describe the dynamic interplay between knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and health-related behaviour such as prenatal genetic testing. Following the Theory of Reasoned Action, three dimensions predicted the intention to undergo prenatal genetic testing: the need for more scientific information, a positive attitude towards genetic testing, and the inclination to terminate pregnancy after receiving a positive test result. Results showed that less religious women tended to be more in favour of prenatal tests and in undertaking such tests. This preliminary study provides genetic counsellors and policy makers with a clearer picture of their clients’ motives and attitudes behind the decision-making process of prenatal genetic testing, contributing to improving both the communication process between counsellors and their clients and the organization of genetic services.


Prenatal genetic testing Decision-making Belief system Attitudes Women Structural equation modelling Religion 


  1. A.I.P. (2000) Code of ethics of the Italian psychological association. Retrieved on-line on June 2011 from
  2. Ahmed, S., Atkin, K., Hewison, J., & Green, J. (2006). The influence of faith and religion and the role of religious and community leaders in prenatal decisions for sickle cell disorders and thalassaemia major. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26, 801–809. doi: Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S., Green, J. M., & Hewison, J. (2006). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and terminationof pregnancy for thalassaemia in pregnant Pakistani women in the North of England. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26, 248–257. doi: Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Milton-Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aro, A. R., Hakonen, A., Hietala, M., Lonnqvist, J., Niemelä, P., Peltonen, L., & Aula, P. (1997). Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Education and Counseling, 32, 41–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25-years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boggio, A. (2005). Italy enacts new law on medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction, 20, 1153–1157.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Braithwaite, D., Sutton, S., & Steggles, N. (2002). Intention to participate in predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer: the role of attitude toward uncertainty. Psychology and Health, 17, 761–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Browner, C. H., & Preloran, H. M. (1999). Male partners’ role in Latinas’ amniocentesis decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 8(2), 85–107.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Browner, C. H., Preloran, H. M., Casado, M. C., Bass, H., & Walker, A. (2003). Genetic counselling gone awry: some consequences of miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Latina clients. Social Science & Medicine, 56(9), 1933–1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cappelli, M., Surh, L., Humphreys, L., Verma, S., Logan, D., Hunter, A., & Allanson, J. (2001). Psychological and social determinants of women’s decisions to undergo genetic counselling and testing for breast cancer. Clinical Genetics, 55(6), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caricati, L. (2007). Power of genetics: adaptation and validation of a scale for measuring Belief in Genetic Determinism (BGD) with classical test analysis and rasch analysis. TPM, 14(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
  17. Catz, D. S., Green, N. S., Tobin, J. N., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., Kyler, P., Umemoto, A., Cernoch, J., Brown, R., & Wolman, F. (2005). Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genetics, 8(3), 161–172.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Cipriani, R., & Bove, G. (2003). Le multiple forme del pluralismo religioso [Multiple forms of religious pluralism]. In F. Garelli, G. Guizzardi, & E. Pace (Eds.), Un singolare pluralismo (pp. 159–191). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  19. Conferenza Stato-Regioni (2004). Linee guida per le attività di genetica medica [Guidelines to activities on medical genetics]. Retrieved on September 2008 from
  20. Dei Tos, G. A. (2007). Etica e genetica. Studi Zancan, 2, 133–149.Google Scholar
  21. Dormandy, E., Hankins, M., & Marteau, T. (2006). Attitudes and uptake of a screening test: the moderating role of ambivalence. Psychological Health, 21(4), 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dormandy, E., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the test. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24, 864–868. doi: Scholar
  23. Durant, J., Bauer, M., Midden, C., Gaskell, G., & Liakopoulos, M. (2000). Two cultures of public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 131–156). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Edwards, J. (2002). Taking public understanding seriously. New Genetics and Society, 21(3), 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. EORG (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3. Retrieved on September 2009 from
  27. Etchegary, H. (2004). Psychological aspects of predictive genetic test decisions: what do we know so far? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Fraser, C. (1994). Attitudes, social representations and widespread beliefs. Papers on Social Representations, 3(1). Retrieved March 2002, from
  30. Frost, S., Myers, L. B., & Newman, S. P. (2001). Genetic screening for Alzheimer’s disease: what factors predict intentions to take a test? Behavioural Medicine, 27, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Furr, L. A., & Seger, R. E. (1998). Psychosocial predictors of interest in prenatal genetic screening. Psychiatry Reports, 82(1), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. G.U. n. 216, September 14th (1996). Decreto Ministeriale 22 luglio 1996. Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale erogabili nell’ambito del Servizio sanitario nazionale e relative tariffe. Retrieved on August 2010 from
  33. Garcia, E., Timmermans, D. R., & van Leeuwen, E. (2008). Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 115–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., Wagner, W., Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996–2000: the years of controversy (pp. 53–79). London: Science Museum Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: a retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. The Journal of General Psychology, 136(2), 153–176.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Glanz, K., Grove, J., Lerman, C., Gotay, C., & LeMarchand, L. (1999). Correlates of intentions to obtain genetic counseling and colorectal cancer genetic testing among at-risk relatives from three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8, 329–336.Google Scholar
  37. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Lewis, F. M. (2002). Health behavior and health education. Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Halbert, C. H., Kessler, L. J., & Mitchell, E. (2005). Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer in African Americans. Cancer Investigation, 23, 285–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Halliday, J., Lumley, J., & Watson, L. (1995). Comparison of women who do and do not have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. Lancet, 345, 704–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hietala, M., Hakonen, A., Aro, A. R., Niemela, P., Peltonen, L., & Aula, P. (1995). Attitudes towards genetic testing among the general population and relatives of patients with a severe genetic disease: a survey from Finland. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 56, 1493–1500.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. I.S.T.A.T. (2008). Tavole di dati [Tables Data]. Retrieved on July 2010 from
  42. Ishiyama, I., Nagai, A., Muto, K., Tamakoshi, A., Kokado, M., Mimura, K., Tanzawa, T., & Yamagata, Z. (2008). Relationship between public attitudes toward genomic studies related to medicine and their level of genomic literacy in Japan. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 146A(13), 1696–1706. Part A.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Italian Law 40/2004, n.40. Gazzetta Ufficiale n.45 (February 24, 2004).Google Scholar
  44. Italian National Institute of Health (1998). Linee guida per test genetici [Guidelines for genetic testing]. Retrieved from
  45. Ivry, T., Teman, E., & Frumkin, A. (2011). God-Sent ordeals and their discontents: Haredi ultra-orthodox Jewish women negotiate prenatal testing. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1527–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Janz, N., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: a decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jaspers, J., & Fraser, C. (1984). Attitudes and social representations. In Farr and Moscovici (Eds.) Social representations (pp. 101–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). Lisrel 7. A guide to the program and appications. Chicago: Spss Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Lisrel 8. User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  50. Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (2001). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kind, P. M., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kobelka, C., Mattman, A., & Langlois, S. (2009). An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result. Prenatal Diagnosis, 29(5), 514–519.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L. R., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., et al. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 305–320.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Learman, L. A., Kuppermann, M., Gates, E., Nease, R. F., Jr., Gildengorin, V., & Washington, A. E. (2003). Social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions: are there racial/ethnic differences? American Journal of Medical Genetics, 119C, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Legare, F., St-Jacques, S., Gagnon, S., Njoya, M., Brisson, M., Fremont, P., & Rousseau, F. (2011). Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenatal Diagnosis, 31, 319–326. doi: Scholar
  57. Lerman, C., Marshall, J., Audrain, J., & Gomez-Caminero, A. (1996). Genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility: anticipated reactions of patients and challenges to providers. International Journal of Cancer, 69(1), 58–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Lerman, C., Hughes, C., Trock, B. J., Myers, R. E., Main, D., Bonney, A., Abbaszadegan, M. R., Harty, A. E., Franklin, B. A., Lynch, J. F., & Lynch, H. T. (1999). Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1618–1622.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Leung, T. N., Ching Chau, M. M., Chang, J. J., Leung, T. Y., Fung, T. Y., & Lau, T. K. (2004). Attitudes towards termination of pregnancy among Hong Kong Chinese women attending prenatal diagnosis counselling clinic. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24, 546–551. doi: Scholar
  60. MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 193–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marteau, T. M., Kidd, J., Cook, R., Michie, S., Johnston, M., Slack, J., et al. (1991). Perceived risk not actual risk predicts uptake of amniocentesis. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 98, 282–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Michie, S., Drake, H., Bobrow, M., & Marteau, T. (1995). A comparison of public and professionals’ attitudes towards genetic developments. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Michie, S., Dormandy, E., French, D. P., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychology and Health, 19(6), 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mishori Dery, A., Carmi, R., & Shoham Vardi, I. (2008). Attitudes toward the acceptability of reasons for pregnancytermination due to fetal abnormalities among prenatal care providers and consumers in Israel. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 518–524. doi: Scholar
  66. N.I.H. (n.d.). on-line document. Retrieved on September 2009 from
  67. OBSERVA (2008). Gli italiani e la scienza. Primo rapporto su scienza, tecnologia e opinione pubblica in Italia [Italians and Science. The First report on science, technology and public opinion in Italy]. Annuario Scienza e Società. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  68. Palmonari, A. (2004). Si può pensare ad una psicologia sociale fondata sulla teoria delle rappresentazioni sociali?. In N. De Piccoli e G.P. Quaglino (a cura di), Psicologia sociale in dialogo. Scritti in onore di Piero Amerio [Social Psychology in dialogue. Writings in honour of Piero Amerio]. Milano, Unicopli.Google Scholar
  69. Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1997). Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 979–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raz, A. E., Atar, M., Rodnay, M., Shoham-Vardi, I., & Carmi, R. (2003). Between acculturation and ambivalence: knowledge of genetics and attitudes towards genetic testing in a consanguineous Bedouin community. Community Genetics, 6, 88–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Reid, B., Sinclair, M., Barr, O., Dobbs, F., & Crealey, G. (2009). A meta-synthesis of pregnant women’s decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Social Science & Medicine, 69(11), 1561–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rose, A. L., Peters, N., Shea, J. A., & Armstrong, K. (2005). Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genetics, 8(3), 145–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Rouquette, M-L., & Flament, C. (2003) Anatomie des idée ordinaries [Anatomy of everyday ideas]. Paris, A.Colin.Google Scholar
  74. Rowe, R., Puddicombe, D., Hockley, C., & Redshaw, M. (2008). Offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 1245–1250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. S.I.G.U. (2004). Censimento SIGU 2002Strutture di genetica medica e test genetici in Italia [Census SIGU 2002- Medical genetics structures and genetic tests in Italy]. Retrieved on March 2008 from
  76. S.I.Di.P. (2006). Linee guida sulle tecniche invasive in diagnosi prenatale [Guidelines on prenatal diagnosis invasive techniques]. Retrieved on September 2009 from
  77. Sapp, J. C., Chandros Hull, S., Duffer, S., Zornetzer, S., Sutton, E., Marteau, T. M., & Bowles Biesecker, B. (2010). Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30(1), 77–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Saucier, J. B., Johnston, D., Wicklund, C. A., Robbins-Furman, P., Hecht, J. T., & Monga, M. (2005). Racial-ethnic differences in genetic amniocentesis uptake. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(3), 189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research—Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  80. Schwartz, M. D., Hughes, C., Roth, J., Main, D., Peshkin, B. N., Isaacs, C., et al. (2000). Spiritual faith and genetic testing decisions among high-risk breast cancer probands. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 9(4), 381–385.Google Scholar
  81. Seror, V., & Ville, Y. (2010). Women’s attitudes to the successive decisions possibly involved in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: how consistent with their actual decisions? Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 1086–1093. doi: Scholar
  82. Seth, S. G., Goka, T., Harbison, A., Hollier, L., Peterson, S., Ramondetta, L., & Noblin, S. J. (2011). Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(6), 660–673.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Sher, C., Romano-Zelekha, O., Green, M. S., & Shohat, T. (2003). Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 30, 418–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shoham-Vardi, I., Weiner, N., Weitzman, D., & Levcovich, A. (2004). Termination of pregnancy: attitudes and behavior of women in a traditional society. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24(11), 869–875.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., & Antonucci, T. C. (2005). U.S. attitudes toward genetic testing, 1990–2000. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Singer, E., Couper, M. P., Raghunathan, T., Van Hoewyk, J., & Antonucci, T. (2008). Trends in US attitudes toward genetic testing, 1990–2004. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 446–458.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smerecnik, C. M., Mesters, I., de Vries, N. K., & de Vries, H. (2008). Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genetic Medicine, 10, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sturgis, P. J., & Allum, N. C. (2001). Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: reply to Hayes and Tariq. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tercyak, K. P., Johnson, S. B., Roberts, S. F., & Cruz, A. C. (2001). Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Education and Counseling, 43, 73–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thomas, S., Herbert, D., Street, A., Barnes, C., Boal, J., & Komesaroff, P. (2007). Attitudes towards and beliefs about genetic testing in the haemophilia community: a qualitative study. Haemophilia, 13(5), 633–641.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Toiviainen, H., Jallinoja, P., Aro, A. R., & Hemminki, E. (2003). Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 565–572.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Turoldo, F. (2007). Non esiste un gene per lo spirito umano: considerazioni filosofiche ed etiche sui test genetici in fase prenatale. Studi Zancan, 2, 120–132.Google Scholar
  93. van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D. R. M., Kleinveld, J. H., van Eijk, J. Th., Knol, D. L., van der Wal, G., & van Vugt, J. M. G. (2007). Are counsellors’ attitudes influencing pregnant women’s attitudes and decisions on prenatal screening? Prenatal Diagnosis, 27, 518–524. doi: Scholar
  94. Vergani, P., Locatelli, A., Biffi, A., Ciriello, E., Zagarella, A., Pezzullo, J. C., & Ghidini, A. (2002). Factors affecting the decision regarding amniocentesis in women at genetic risk because of age 35 years or older. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(9), 769–774.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Vernon, S. W., Gritz, E. R., Peterson, S. K., Perz, C. A., Marani, S., Amos, C. I., & Baile, W. F. (1999). Intention to learn results of genetic testing for hereditary colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8, 353–360.Google Scholar
  96. Wilson, J. L., Ferguson, G. M., & Thorn, J. M. (2011). Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women’s decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(2), 143–156.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (361–388). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University G. d’AnnunzioChieti-PescaraItaly
  2. 2.University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations